Prominent Politics and Philosophy

Obama, in a recent visit to Israel, declared a solemn obligation to the safety and security of Israel as a nation. As much as I respect Obama and support him and his policies, I find the nature of his support to Israel somewhat precarious. Indeed, the Palestine/Israel conflict is something that needs to be addressed and ameliorated, however I find issue in doing this by providing military assistance of anywhere up to an assumed £132 million – especially with such large debts.

However, the issue doesn’t solely concern economical factors for me. America has a large industry and has illustrated signs of growth under the Obama administration. What I do find difficult to comprehend is this, perhaps false, ideology of equality that Obama preaches in his own country regarding race, sex, and age, but then when in Israel he clearly defines his agenda and support for one nation. Instead of finding a resolution he’s evidently supporting an aggressive and hostile regime – I’m not suggesting that if he supported Palestine, he wouldn’t be supporting a belligerent regime, I just think aid and funding can be offered in other areas such as rebuilding infrastructure.

Moreover, I can’t understand Obama arguing against the Second Amendment – the right to bear arms – which endangers hundreds of citizens – I must clear up that I strongly disagree with the Second Amendment. He argues that a safer nature will be available if weapons are correctly and effectively managed and organised. Schools would be safer, streets would be safer, whole areas ridden with gun violence would be safer. Yet he contradicts and undermines his own argument by providing arms through the guise of aid to aggressive, war-ridden nations. The same was seen in Syria and Libya and it only exasperated deteriorating political conditions.

This leads me to question Obama as an individual; are there ulterior motives in his leadership? Is he the libertarian American longs for? Or does he just conform to a long line of militaristic Presidents intent upon expanding America beyond it’s already conquered lands. Another country bound by economic pressure of America would benefit the American’s massively and I wonder if Obama’s front is beginning to wear thin in his second term.

On the contrary, one might argue that Obama is simply trying to contain the mess which was created by previous administrations and that the effects are irreversible; however I think we have seen that this is not the case from the sheer magnitude of the money he has contributed. I fear the creation of another Al-Qaeda based group operating within Israel and Palestine.

Advertisements

Rate this:

I think it’s hard to really define our country as a democracy any more due to the nature of parliament. Although we see parties under the banner of Labour, Conservative, or Liberal Democrats, they’re essentially one amalgamation of common beliefs, those being: we’re a predominantly financial country that trades not in material goods, but relies wholly on a strong (or currently weak) financial center i.e. London.

Indeed, when the City was performing well, Blair hailed its performance and was a bulwark for the City. Now, however, we attack them and are willing to bludgeon the bankers that lost all our money – when it was the years of deregulation that allowed such a thing to happen. I am a strong supporter of Labour but I’m also a strong supporter of holding those accountable for allowing such disasters to happen – of course I blame the Conservative government, too, for becoming extremely reliant on and tied to the American economy and its financial sector. It’s a long-winded argument.

Nonetheless, and perhaps too late on the matter, after the degradation of Britain’s AAA rating, Milliband (and Labour) had countless opportunities to land attacks on Osborne for his austerity plans and the route he’s taken so far. But, in typical Milliband style, instead of taking the opportunity to berate him with abuse and demand answers for reasons we’ve lost the AAA rating, Labour offered nothing and instead squabbled among themselves and offered no coherent alternative for what is happening. Ed Balls predicted that something along the lines of this car crash would happen and if he had stuck to that script then Labour would have had a clear stance in Parliament, but instead they remain ambiguous. The Tories, however, have made their stance perfectly clear which is to stick to the current austerity plan or cut harder and faster. Perhaps an approach similar to World War Two needs to be adopted which encourages an increase in demand and an answer to heavy unemployment. On the contrary, nobody is going to listen to Labour because they hit the poor end of 13 years of governing.

Rate this:

An issue concerning, sadly, a minority of women is that feminism as an ideology has become dormant. Indeed, in America we see some support for movements which is certainly a sign that the movement isn’t completely dead, but it lacks widespread support from not only females, but males too. The notion of a man supporting feminism may seem somewhat absurd – and to some extent ironic and perhaps undermining. Some women feel the need for independence and to fight for their own rights as a single, united sex, rather than have a man attain it for them – I’m not suggesting they need male assistance, I just feel it’s not a black and white issue and an element of unity from both parties needs to be formed in order to gain complete homogeneity.

In British Parliament and American Congress we see a great lack of female politicians and subsequently we see an under represented sect of society. Perspectives effect choices and where men feel they may be making the right choices on a woman’s behalf, they are, in fact, nowhere near what is wanted. D. H. Lawrence – and to some extent Gustave Flaubert – is a striking example of this. Using literature as a medium to explore the notion of individuality, repression of desires, and the oppression of a female, rather than exploring key themes of female subjection, his novel stemmed into personal exploration, rather than universal. Of course, it would be ignorant to suggest that the novels didn’t raise key issues to do with desire suppression, but the majority was concerned with the authors personal standpoint.

However, the two raise salient issues regarding something which goes somewhat unnoticed in modern society as it isn’t widely recognized or, to my despair, heard of. Intersubjectivity is an interesting notion that asserts the individual is defined by a range of connections and relationships and the idea of complete autonomy is a deeply male orientated idea. I, personally, find this viewpoint one we must embrace as it incorporates the idea of universality, homogeneity, and, foremost, equality. It recognizes the need for each other as supporting parties, rather than two mutually exclusive groups that must constantly compete. Competition is, to some extent, necessary, but only in specific areas; areas which don’t concern a basic human right and a divine right, such as being able to achieve the same position of a man in a workplace, self-expression through fashion without judgement, and other issues which focus primarily on women and neglect men.

Take a further read of continental feminism rather than remaining blind to it and perhaps the notions could be embraced with open arms, rather than misconstrued and thrown into a dark corner to be ignored.

astonished by private confirmation from within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy and seize Julian Assange.

This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna Convention of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which encodes the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most subscribed single international treaty in the world.

The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic premises are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification or qualification elsewhere in the treaty.

Article 22

1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enterthem, except with the consent of the head of the mission.2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premisesof the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of themission or impairment of its dignity.3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means oftransport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War, defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide.

The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a strong enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of the “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of the neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international law.

The British Government bases its argument on domestic British legislation. But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its obligations in international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would leave British diplomats with no protection worldwide.

I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing the move against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken in Number 10.

There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal Democrats. That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact now in any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government salaries and privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any belief to these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party for over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had principles.

Article courtesy of Craig Murray

Rate this:

It was wonderful to see a “Closing Ceremony”, rather than a “Closing down ceremony”, which many people were expecting. Me included. I’ll be honest, I never really expected the Olympics to be as successful as they were. Not just in terms of medals won and where we appeared on the medal table – but, rather, because we couldn’t afford the event (again) and pulled it out of the bag and showed the world we are pretty good – again.

One of the highlights of the event was the Royals and the government. We weren’t the whole super boring, serious Conservative nation we may have once been (were, depending on your view). The Queen parachuted for us and that said to the world “Yes, we do start illegal wars; we do owe you a lot of money; we did spill oil everywhere and endangered a lot of animals; but can your royal family do this!?”. A great cutaway was Dave, Boris and Ed and their wives dancing to Spice Girls:

Cameron looks somewhat uncomfortable in his dance; but, Boris! He’s loving his time. After his opening speech before the games began, his reputation has shot up; can I smell a new Conservative party leader!? It smells like freshly trimmed roses, frankincense, and the souls of urban London orphans.

With all this in mind, now the Olympic flame has gone out, has Britain’s flame faded along with it?

Rate this:

Dear Sir,
I write before you under no malice or aggression; but rather out of an injustice caused to me as of 20th July, 2012. I cannot give greater proof of the high opinion I have of your candour and post as Ministry of Justice, than by the liberty I am to take by offering you advice upon a subject which you have so just a claim to act for yourself. I know you to have a love for justice, law and order and I, too, share this desire to live in a community in which shares the same views as yourself; however, upon an incident in which my motorbike was stolen, I was faced harshly with the truths of our community; perhaps, in some sense, my own naivety deceived me into believing that we live in a society in which the law and justice is respected by one-another. Apparently, your Right Honourable Gentleman, this is not the case.
You must forgive me for the way I have introduced myself and have possibly been elusive in the purport of my writing and who, in fact, I am. As you will know, the British Youth Council recently ran local elections for a local Member of Youth Parliament. My name is Joseph Williams and I was lucky enough to be chosen by my constituents of a similar age to fill this post. It is something I respect so much so, that it surpasses my power of expression – as I’m sure you’re aware of given your current position. However, those very same constituents who chose me to represent them; those constituents whom claim to lack a voice in the community which chose me to articulate for the inarticulate; those very same constituents which claim they receive a bad press for theft et al. have chosen to none other than stab me in the larynx by stealing from me.
I propose, after this malignant act, that a reformation is to take place on the current Criminal Justice Act, 2001. In Saudi Arabia, Syria and, now the old Libya (after the removal of the corrupt tyrant Gadaffi), the punishment for theft is to be:
• Branding
• Limb amputation
• Capital punishment
Now, alike your respectful self, I believe these punishments to be extremely radical. However, this style of justice system has been proven to work. If we take a look at statistics1, the total number of recorded automobile thefts in the UK (2002) was 348, 169 as opposed to Saudi Arabia’s 18, 717. These recordings have led me to believe that the current justice system in Saudi Arabia is proving much more effectual than our current system. Granted, of course, we have to take into consideration the greater number of automobiles the UK has, but when we compare that to the surface area and population of Saudi Arabia, a country rich in oil, it begins to balance out the figures.
I do not call upon you to make drastic adjustments to the bill, and I understand the timescale which often encumbers any progress; but I believe it to be within the best interest of those of which that still support you and I, and those of which I still wish to speak on behalf of within my constituency. Permit me to assure you, Sir, I believe you to be a venerable man and I fear that you will think this address impertinent; yet, I still seek your approbation and request you seek the virtue in the reasons I write such a letter. Believe me, your Right Honourable Gentleman, I merit your utmost attention and regard on these matters which I present unto you. However, I feel after such an act of betrayal – not merely betrayal to me and everything on which I stand for but lest we forget the betrayal to yourself for everything you try to serve and protect yours and my own constituents with – a change of some sort must be made. Therefore, I plead you forgive me for, what may appear to be, impudence and vow that it is the mode of the letter, rather than the tone which actually undercuts my true word. I eagerly await a reply on your opinions and views and:
I am, Sir,
Your most humble and obedient servant,
Joseph Williams, MYP

Rate this:

In what looks to be a predictable turn of events, Greece have given up on the unlikely prospect of yet another bail out and are considering leaving the Euro. Cause for concern began to grow and large investors have began withdrawing from Greek banks and moving to much more stable banks within the Euro zone, having detrimental effects on Greece. Lack of confidence within the financial stability can cause Greece to have no choice but to live up to predictions, or request another bail out, which seems highly unlikely. Monday saw €800 million pulled from Greek banks Monday — nearly $1 billion in U.S. dollars, and €72 billion pulled from Greek banks since January 2010 alone.

Analysts began to fear that a “bank run” was on the horizon. Bank runs take place when large groups of customers withdraw their holdings from banking institutions, fearing that the bank will soon be insolvent. As more people withdraw from the bank, the likelihood of insolvency increases, further increasing the number of customers who withdraw. Essentially, closure transforms from a possibility to self-fulfilling prophecy.

The saying: “It’s all gone a bit Greek”, which I may or may not have made up, comes to mind. I feel sorry for the Greek people, but not for their poor politicians. This is a quintessential example of PPP.

Rate this:

America, the war mongering psychopaths they already are, have taken to dizzy new heights by entering Israel. 9000 troops are entering Israel without much media attention and are suspected of attacking Tehran; however, the American’s have obviously said they’re not going to do that and it’s all for some military testing. Haven’t we heard that before? Yeah, they also said they weren’t going to fight in Vietnam, they were just going to send some military advisers over! And they also said Iraq had WMD’s but has anyone found any of them? I thought not!

It’s not been a secret that tensions between the two have been significantly high recently, and as soon as Iran “hijacked” the American drone, a constant backfire of words and arguments has resulted in this. Many have speculated the escapade but nobody expected it to happen so soon.

Apparently, the two countries are going to hold a missile olympics to see who has the bigger bullets and then presumably fire them at each other. The concern isn’t with the missiles being fired as this was confirmed a long while ago, what is the major issue is the fact it takes 9000 American troops to do so. That’s a lot of people in Israel and could be perceived as an act of imperialism and a threat to the nations national defence (or so they’ll say) and that could end up in all out war. New command posts will begin to be in operation throughout Israel and it seems inevitable for it all to eventually kick off.

The only problem is, there’s a bit of the Cuban missile crisis going on. Personally I think it’s only a matter of time before someone presses the big red button that says “Apocalyspe Now!” (ooh, war movie reference related to Vietnam).

That goes to their brainless readers, too. The Daily Mail have, once again, become pricks over the New Year. A time of celebration and good-will and the Daily Mail comes along and drags us all back to the underworld of reality. Why am I so angry? Because the Daily Mail, in all their hypocrisy, have written an article and complained about the pre-watershed exposure of Lara Pulver. Now, let’s just get one thing absolutely clear here, you have a page 3 model page, full of exploitation of the female body, to any reader that comes along and see’s it. The paper thrives upon celebrity “news” and attempts to have an input on politics and current affairs by giving half-educated opinions on whatever they feel like. The paper consistently complains about the downfall of the British public when it only has itself to blame for feeding the masses utter shit that it spews from its metaphorical mouth. The irony here is the fact that the paper plastered an image of the beautiful Lara Pulver across the page of the newspaper which can be viewed both online and in print. Pot, meet the fucking kettle. The Daily Mail has managed to once again piss everyone off in its utter hypocrisy, how it manages to maintain readership I have NO idea – it’s probably due to it’s page 3 models (which, of course, they no doubt condemn).

Although this contradicts my title of “PPPolitics” and this is not necessarily political, I will be adding another post later on about something political. I haven’t gone soft!

Rate this:

Apparently so, anyway. This is what Labour’s new policy seems to be, it doesn’t have too much to it. What Labour have suggested is “remain optimistic”, which is pretty obvious considering it probably couldn’t get that much worse. What Milliband should have probably said was “We’re close to rock bottom, really. It could get a little bit bumpier, double dip, few recessionary measures handled by that Etonian and his best mates in their ‘light-handed manner’, EU issues, but nothing we’ve not had to deal with; three more years to go and we might just get me to sort things out”.

Oh, Eddie, how I love your charismatic approach to serious issues. I myself am a strong Labour supporter. I do, in fact, hope at the General Election of 2015 that Milliband finds his voice and does something great and pulls a trick out of the bag, or at least Cameron to gets into a limousine and calls someone from Bradford a peasant (I can dream!). At the same time, I also hope good ol’ Eddie stops being such a tool and starts working things out properly. I hope he realises his manifesto isn’t that great, Ball’s and His ideas are on par with Cameron’s and Osborne’s and he can continue to slate Cameron as much as he likes but until he finds some sort of better alternative I suggest he does what the rest of us are having to do and deal with it.

Being completely honest, I can already predict some extent of the speech. It’ll go along the lines of Him saying we need to help the squeezed middle class and encourage public spending. He’ll target the public sector and defend them to his death bed because, after all, he’s a socialist (in the New Labour sense) and that’s what we do. Sadly, however, he’ll fall into the “tax and spend” trap which never really solves anything. Cameron tried encouraging public spending earlier last year and it really didn’t do much for the economy.

What I suggest is he edges on the debt relief side of things (providing Cameron doesn’t already use this). It was around the ’80’s when a lot of money was given to Sudan and over the years after changing interest rates, the debt rose to £678 million. Sudan have asked for debt relief, now if Britain essentially say “okay, you don’t owe us it, providing this contributes towards the target of spending 0.7 per cent of the national income”. That could effectively help Britain “cancel out” some of our debt and get us on track for targets.

We’ll see what 2012 has to offer for us, but I suspect internationally it’s going to be rather interesting.